​‘US has no idea how to deal with Islamic State’

The US and the UK face a dilemma in battling the Islamic State, because it would likely mean siding with Assad in Syria against an enemy they helped create and against wishes of their allies in the region, political analyst Chris Bambery told RT.

RT:Do you think America will limit its anti-Islamic State
operation in Syria to simply drone surveillance?

Chris Bambery: I think the Americans aren’t
really in control of this intervention. They don’t really know
what to do. There are increasing voices inside the United States
and in Britain that they should side with the Assad regime
against ISIS because the Islamic State is now the main enemy.

Though, I would like to point out, they can't do that because
that would mean a break with their allies, Saudi Arabia, Turkey
and Qatar. The American really have got no idea, I think, how to
deal with it. Because they know well, as their military chiefs
have pointed out, airstrikes alone aren't sufficient to defeat
ISIS, whether those strikes are in Syria, or whether they are in
Iraq.

And they have to find a force on the ground which can match and
defeat ISIS. The Kurdish fighters can capture most of the dam,
but that does not compare to capturing of the city of Mosul which
is a major operation, which will involve heavy losses and will
require heavy weaponry, none of which the Peshmerga have.

I think the US are kind of casting around, trying to come up with
something to show they are dealing with the ISIS as a threat. And
sending drones will of course increase surveillance. But I think
there is a sense as well in the US and in Britain that the
increased involvement of the West in this region can lead to
accidents happening.

We should remember that in Vietnam it began with American
training troops being sent in and specialist forces being sent
in. But actually as the Vietnamese began to attack them, the
Americans had to send in the ground troops to protect their own
advisers.

And I think it is that kind of feeling here in Syria and Iraq
that they are on a slippery slope; and really this can lead quite
easily to a Western intervention which both Obama and British PM
David Cameron say they don't want.

RT:Why is Washington so reluctant to openly
unite with Damascus in the face of a common and serious
threat?

CB: Well it would mean that if the US sided with
Damascus, it would mean a break with the Saudi Arabia which is a
very important ally and of course a major investor and a trade
partner of the US. It would mean a break with Turkey, a key
member of the NATO alliance and probably less important Qatar.
That would be a really big shift in American foreign policy.

Also it would involve a really big retreat by President Obama,
who previously made it clear he wants to overthrow the Assad
regime. Remember it was only last summer, Obama wanted cruise
missile strikes in Damascus to help the rebels topple Assad.

So I think it is very difficult for the Obama administration to
suddenly support Assad against ISIS. But this is what is being
argued by many in the American military and by people at the
former British foreign secretary Malcolm Rifkind's, who points
out that “Churchill and Roosevelt said they would support Stalin
in WWII, why can't we recognize ISIS as our main enemy we face in
the region and ally with Assad who at least got the capability of
defeating these people on the ground.” But I think this is too
much for Obama to take.